Bava Batra 54
Share this shiur:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Bava Batra 54
דִּשְׁדָא לִיפְתָּא בֵּי פִילֵי דְּאַרְעָא דְגֵר – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁדָא – לָא הָוֵי שְׁבָחָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָא שָׁבַח – מִמֵּילָא קָא שָׁבַח.
who threw turnip seeds in the crevices [filei] of the land of a convert who died without heirs, it is not sufficient to take possession. What is the reason for this? As at the time that he threw the seeds there was no enhancement to the value of the field. Now that the turnips have grown and the value of the field is enhanced, it is enhanced by itself.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָשַׁח דִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא. כּוֹלָּא מֵחַד גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא.
The Gemara records a series of rulings with regard to taking possession of land. Shmuel says: With regard to this one who cuts the branches of a palm tree, if he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the benefit of the animals, to feed his animals the branches, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took branches from this side and from that side, he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, as this assists the growth of the tree; but if the branches that he took were all from one side, he had in mind the benefit of the animals.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּזָכֵי זִיכְיָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וְזוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא, שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וּשְׁבַק זוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who clears [dezakkei zikheya] a field of trees, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the collection of the wood, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took large and small pieces of wood, he had in mind the improvement of the field; however, if he took the large pieces of wood but left the small ones, he had in mind the collection of the wood.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּאתָקֵיל תִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מוּלְיָא וּשְׁדָא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא. מוּלְיָא בְּמוּלְיָא וְנַצָּא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who removes protuberances and levels the ground, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took a mound and threw it in a ditch, thereby leveling both areas, he had in mind the improvement of the field; but if he leveled the ground with a mound in the place of a mound and a ditch in the place of a ditch, expanding each area but leaving the field as a whole uneven, he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָתַח מַיָּא בְּאַרְעָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? פָּתַח תְּרֵי בָבֵי, חַד מְעַיֵּיל וְחַד מַפֵּיק – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי. חַד בָּבָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who opened a blockage and enabled water to enter into a section of land, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to irrigate it, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the catching of the fish, i.e., to enable the water to flow in so that he could catch the fish therein, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he opened two gates, one bringing in the water and one taking out the water, this indicates that he had in mind the catching of the fish, as the water will flow out of the field, giving him the means to catch the fish; but if he opened only one gate, this indicates that he had in mind the improvement of the field.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲכַלָה דִּיקְלָא בְּתַפְשִׁיחָא, תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין. אֲתָא הָהוּא [גַּבְרָא], רָפֵיק תּוּתֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּלֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, אוֹקְמֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַאי קָא צָוְוחָא קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַחְזֵיקְתְּ כִּדְמַחְזְקִי אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who profited from an ownerless palm tree by cutting its branches for thirteen years. Another then came and plowed beneath it a bit. The case came before Levi, and some say that it came before Mar Ukva, who established the property in the possession of the one who plowed. The woman came and shouted before him, protesting the perceived injustice of his ruling. Mar Ukva said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession?
אָמַר רַב: הַצָּר צוּרָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה; דְּרַב לָא קָנֵי לְגִנְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב, אֶלָּא בְּצוּרְתָּא.
Rav says: One who draws an image, e.g., he paints an image on the wall, on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it, as Rav himself acquired the garden of the house of Rav, which had been ownerless property, only by drawing an image.
אִיתְּמַר: שָׂדֶה הַמְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּישׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד.
§ It was stated: With regard to a field that is defined by its boundaries, i.e., it has clearly demarcated boundaries on all sides, Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property. And Shmuel says that he has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּדְאָזֵיל תַּיָּירָא דְשׁוֹרֵי וְהָדַר.
And if it is not defined by its boundaries, up to how much of the field is acquired by one strike of the hoe? Rav Pappa said: He acquires as far as an ox driver goes and returns, i.e., the size of a standard furrow, beginning where the hoe entered the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוֹי – מִכִּי מָטוּ זוּזֵי לִידֵיהּ אִסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי עַד דְּמָטֵי שְׁטָרָא לִידֵיהּ. הִלְכָּךְ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the property of a gentile that was sold to a Jew for money, it is ownerless like a desert until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; anyone who takes possession of it in the interim has acquired it. What is the reason for this? The gentile relinquishes ownership of it from the moment when the money reaches his hand, while the Jew who purchased it does not acquire it until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא; וּמַלְכָּא אָמַר: לָא לִיקְנֵי אַרְעָא אֶלָּא בְּאִיגַּרְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא; עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּזְבַן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרִינָא רָפֵיק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא; אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידָא דְּשֵׁנִי.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., the halakha obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, and the king said that land may not be acquired without a document? Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition. Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know how to reconcile this contradiction, but there was an incident in the village of Dura that was founded by shepherds, where there was a Jew who purchased land from a gentile by giving money, and in the interim another Jew came and plowed it a bit. The two Jews came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he established the property in the possession of the second individual. This accords with the ruling of Shmuel that the property is ownerless until a Jew performs an act of acquisition.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דּוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא קָאָמְרַתְּ?! הָתָם בָּאגֵי מִטַּמְּרִי הֲווֹ – דְּאִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי טַסְקָא לְמַלְכָּא, וּמַלְכָּא אֲמַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב טַסְקָא, לֵיכוֹל אַרְעָא.
Abaye said to him: Are you saying that the incident occurred in Dura that was founded by shepherds? Proof cannot be brought from that case, as there the fields were concealed, since the owners of fields would not pay the land tax [taska] to the king, and the king says that one who pays land tax may profit from the field. Therefore, in that case, the gentile who sold the property did not actually own it, and consequently by the laws of the kingdom could not sell it. The one who took possession of the property acquired it in accordance with the law of the kingdom, as he committed to pay the land tax. Elsewhere, one would not acquire the field until he received a deed of sale from the gentile.
רַב הוּנָא זְבֵן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, אֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר רָפֵיק בַּהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶם זָכָה?
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. Rav Huna and that Jew came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in the possession of the latter. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: What are you thinking in issuing this ruling? Is it because Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Bronx, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Ontario, Canada
Bronx, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
New York, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Bava Batra 54
דִּשְׁדָא לִיפְתָּא בֵּי פִילֵי דְּאַרְעָא דְגֵר – לָא הָוֵי חֲזָקָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּשְׁדָא – לָא הָוֵי שְׁבָחָא, הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָא שָׁבַח – מִמֵּילָא קָא שָׁבַח.
who threw turnip seeds in the crevices [filei] of the land of a convert who died without heirs, it is not sufficient to take possession. What is the reason for this? As at the time that he threw the seeds there was no enhancement to the value of the field. Now that the turnips have grown and the value of the field is enhanced, it is enhanced by itself.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָשַׁח דִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּדִיקְלָא. כּוֹלָּא מֵחַד גִּיסָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְחֵיוָתָא.
The Gemara records a series of rulings with regard to taking possession of land. Shmuel says: With regard to this one who cuts the branches of a palm tree, if he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the benefit of the animals, to feed his animals the branches, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took branches from this side and from that side, he had in mind the acquisition of the palm tree, as this assists the growth of the tree; but if the branches that he took were all from one side, he had in mind the benefit of the animals.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּזָכֵי זִיכְיָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וְזוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא, שְׁקַל רַבְרְבֵי וּשְׁבַק זוּטְרֵי – אַדַּעְתָּא דְצִיבֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who clears [dezakkei zikheya] a field of trees, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the collection of the wood, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took large and small pieces of wood, he had in mind the improvement of the field; however, if he took the large pieces of wood but left the small ones, he had in mind the collection of the wood.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּאתָקֵיל תִּיקְלָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? שְׁקַל מוּלְיָא וּשְׁדָא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא. מוּלְיָא בְּמוּלְיָא וְנַצָּא בְּנַצָּא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְבֵי דָרֵי.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who removes protuberances and levels the ground, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to prepare it for plowing, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he took a mound and threw it in a ditch, thereby leveling both areas, he had in mind the improvement of the field; but if he leveled the ground with a mound in the place of a mound and a ditch in the place of a ditch, expanding each area but leaving the field as a whole uneven, he had in mind the conversion of the field into a threshing floor.
וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי מַאן דְּפָתַח מַיָּא בְּאַרְעָא; אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא – קָנֵי, אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי – לָא קָנֵי. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? פָּתַח תְּרֵי בָבֵי, חַד מְעַיֵּיל וְחַד מַפֵּיק – אַדַּעְתָּא דְכַוְורֵי. חַד בָּבָא – אַדַּעְתָּא דְאַרְעָא.
And Shmuel says with regard to this one who opened a blockage and enabled water to enter into a section of land, if he had in mind the improvement of the field, to irrigate it, he has acquired it; but if he had in mind the catching of the fish, i.e., to enable the water to flow in so that he could catch the fish therein, he has not acquired it. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it can be known what he had in mind? The Gemara answers: If he opened two gates, one bringing in the water and one taking out the water, this indicates that he had in mind the catching of the fish, as the water will flow out of the field, giving him the means to catch the fish; but if he opened only one gate, this indicates that he had in mind the improvement of the field.
הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּאֲכַלָה דִּיקְלָא בְּתַפְשִׁיחָא, תְּלֵיסַר שְׁנִין. אֲתָא הָהוּא [גַּבְרָא], רָפֵיק תּוּתֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּלֵוִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא, אוֹקְמֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתַאי קָא צָוְוחָא קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּלָא אַחְזֵיקְתְּ כִּדְמַחְזְקִי אִינָשֵׁי.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who profited from an ownerless palm tree by cutting its branches for thirteen years. Another then came and plowed beneath it a bit. The case came before Levi, and some say that it came before Mar Ukva, who established the property in the possession of the one who plowed. The woman came and shouted before him, protesting the perceived injustice of his ruling. Mar Ukva said to her: What can I do for you, as you did not take possession of the property in the manner that people take possession?
אָמַר רַב: הַצָּר צוּרָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר – קָנָה; דְּרַב לָא קָנֵי לְגִנְּתָא דְּבֵי רַב, אֶלָּא בְּצוּרְתָּא.
Rav says: One who draws an image, e.g., he paints an image on the wall, on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it, as Rav himself acquired the garden of the house of Rav, which had been ownerless property, only by drawing an image.
אִיתְּמַר: שָׂדֶה הַמְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ – אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכִּישׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד.
§ It was stated: With regard to a field that is defined by its boundaries, i.e., it has clearly demarcated boundaries on all sides, Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property. And Shmuel says that he has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מְסוּיֶּימֶת בִּמְצָרֶיהָ, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּדְאָזֵיל תַּיָּירָא דְשׁוֹרֵי וְהָדַר.
And if it is not defined by its boundaries, up to how much of the field is acquired by one strike of the hoe? Rav Pappa said: He acquires as far as an ox driver goes and returns, i.e., the size of a standard furrow, beginning where the hoe entered the ground.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן. מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוֹי – מִכִּי מָטוּ זוּזֵי לִידֵיהּ אִסְתַּלַּק לֵיהּ, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא קָנֵי עַד דְּמָטֵי שְׁטָרָא לִידֵיהּ. הִלְכָּךְ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the property of a gentile that was sold to a Jew for money, it is ownerless like a desert until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; anyone who takes possession of it in the interim has acquired it. What is the reason for this? The gentile relinquishes ownership of it from the moment when the money reaches his hand, while the Jew who purchased it does not acquire it until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא; וּמַלְכָּא אָמַר: לָא לִיקְנֵי אַרְעָא אֶלָּא בְּאִיגַּרְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא; עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּדוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל דִּזְבַן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, וַאֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרִינָא רָפֵיק בָּהּ פּוּרְתָּא; אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידָא דְּשֵׁנִי.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., the halakha obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, and the king said that land may not be acquired without a document? Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition. Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know how to reconcile this contradiction, but there was an incident in the village of Dura that was founded by shepherds, where there was a Jew who purchased land from a gentile by giving money, and in the interim another Jew came and plowed it a bit. The two Jews came before Rav Yehuda for a ruling, and he established the property in the possession of the second individual. This accords with the ruling of Shmuel that the property is ownerless until a Jew performs an act of acquisition.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דּוּרָא דְרָעֲוָתָא קָאָמְרַתְּ?! הָתָם בָּאגֵי מִטַּמְּרִי הֲווֹ – דְּאִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ לָא הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי טַסְקָא לְמַלְכָּא, וּמַלְכָּא אֲמַר: מַאן דְּיָהֵיב טַסְקָא, לֵיכוֹל אַרְעָא.
Abaye said to him: Are you saying that the incident occurred in Dura that was founded by shepherds? Proof cannot be brought from that case, as there the fields were concealed, since the owners of fields would not pay the land tax [taska] to the king, and the king says that one who pays land tax may profit from the field. Therefore, in that case, the gentile who sold the property did not actually own it, and consequently by the laws of the kingdom could not sell it. The one who took possession of the property acquired it in accordance with the law of the kingdom, as he committed to pay the land tax. Elsewhere, one would not acquire the field until he received a deed of sale from the gentile.
רַב הוּנָא זְבֵן אַרְעָא מִגּוֹי, אֲתָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר רָפֵיק בַּהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אוֹקְמַהּ בִּידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ? דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נִכְסֵי גּוֹי הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמִדְבָּר, וְכׇל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶם זָכָה?
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna purchased land from a gentile. Another Jew came and plowed it slightly. Rav Huna and that Jew came before Rav Naḥman, who established the property in the possession of the latter. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: What are you thinking in issuing this ruling? Is it because Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it?
